Updated 11 July 2017
Nuffield Health Tunbridge Wells Hospital is operated by Nuffield Health. It is a private hospital in Tunbridge Wells, Kent and has been open since 1968. The hospital primarily serves the communities of the Tunbridge Wells area. It also accepts patient referrals from outside this area.
The registered manager had been in post since October 2016.
The accountable officer for controlled drugs (CDs) was the registered manager.
Updated 11 July 2017
Updated 11 July 2017
We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.
Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to report incidents and near misses. The hospital fully investigated incidents and shared learning from them to prevent recurrences.
The hospital planned, implemented and reviewed staffing levels to keep people safe at all times and the hospital responded to any staff shortages quickly and effectively.
Staff planned and delivered patient care in line with current evidence-based guidance, standards, best practice and legislation. The hospital monitored this to ensure consistency of practice.
The hospital routinely collected and monitored information about people’s care and treatment, and their outcomes. The hospital benchmarked their findings against other providers and used this information to improve care.
Overall, feedback from people who used the service and those close to them was positive about the way staff treated people and the care they received.
The hospital coordinated the care and treatment it provided with other services and other providers.
There were high levels of satisfaction across all staff groups. Staff were proud of the organisation as a place to work and spoke highly of the culture.
However:
The hospital did not have a clear process for managing patients who were acutely ill within oncology.
There was no strategic leadership within the oncology unit. This meant that oncology staff did not receive clear leadership. However, they clearly demonstrated passion, dedication and commitment to their roles.
Updated 11 July 2017
We rated this service as good because it was safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.
The service had a good track record on safety. Openness about incidents was encouraged and learning was shared. Staff understood and fulfilled their responsibilities to raise concerns and report incidents and near misses.
The service gave priority to safeguarding CYP and most staff had completed their safeguarding training.
The service planned and delivered CYP care and treatment in line with current evidence-based guidance, standards, best practice and legislation.
Staff were qualified with the skills and experience they needed to carry out their roles effectively and in line with current legislation and best practice. The service had an induction process for new staff that included an assessment of CYP competencies.
Children’s nurses were able to build relationships with patients and their families. This allowed nurses to provide reassurance, information and support to patients and families.
Staff provided emotional support to patients and their families.
The service was flexible in meeting the needs specific to CYP. For instance, the service offered outpatient appointments for CYP during the afternoon, and holidays so that families could attend out of school hours.
The setting was responsive to children’s needs. Outpatient and inpatient rooms were decorated in child friendly motifs.
The CYP team was going through changes when we visited the site. The CYP lead was in an interim role. Staff expected a permanent CYP lead to take over later in February 2017.
The future aim for CYP was to grow the department. However, at the time of inspection this had not started.
Updated 11 July 2017
We rated this service as good because it was safe, caring, responsive and well led. We do not rate effective for the outpatient and diagnostic imaging departments as there is currently not sufficient evidence to rate.
Patients received harm free care in the outpatient and diagnostic imaging departments.
The outpatient department and diagnostic imaging departments was compliant with relevant legislation including ionising radiation regulations.
Records were stored and transported securely.
The outpatient and diagnostic imaging departments provided care based on current, evidence based guidance.
We saw evidence of multi disciplinary work between departments.
Staff had a supportive and encouraging manner with their patients and took the time to listen to and understand their needs.
The outpatient and diagnostic imaging departments were open evenings and weekends.
Patients could schedule appointments at times convenient for them and found the scheduling process to be easy and flexible.
Staff were able to provide services to patients and family members who were living with dementia or had other diverse needs.
Many members of the senior management team and the outpatient department manager were new in post. The implementation of new visions and plans for the service was still in progress and their full impact could not be measured at the time inspection.
Updated 11 July 2017
We rated this service as good for effective, caring, responsive and well led. We rated it as requires improvement for safe.
Patients were protected from the risk of inappropriate or unsafe care because there were systems to ensure that incidents were identified, reported, investigated, and learned from to prevent recurrence.
Policies and procedures used within the surgical department at the hospital, followed evidence based practice.
We observed the staff on Abergavenny ward being very kind, caring, and compassionate towards their patients. All patients and relatives we spoke with told us staff always introduced themselves, were polite, and treated them well.
All surgery carried out at the hospital was elective. Patients could select times and dates to suit their family and work commitments.
Services were planned and delivered to take into account the individual needs of its patients, for example, age, disability, gender, religion or belief.
There was a clear governance structure in place with committees for medicines management, infection control and prevention and health and safety, which fed into the clinical governance committee.
The hospital was led by a senior leadership team that included the hospital director, the finance director and the matron. Staff spoke positively about the senior management team and felt they were listened to with actions being followed through.
However:
Flooring in the majority of the patient bedrooms on Abergavenny Ward was carpet. Carpets in clinical areas prevent effective cleaning and removal of body fluid spillages contrary to the Department of Health’s Health Building Note 00-09: infection control in the built environment.
There were no dedicated clinical hand wash basins in patients' bedrooms. This meant staff had to wash their hands in the basins in patients' en-suite bathrooms, which was contrary to the Department of Health’s Health Building Note 00-09: infection control in the built environment.
We observed a scrub practitioner undertaking poor surgical scrub technique. This was raised with the theatre manager during the inspection and further training had been arranged for staff.